The Bonn Climate Talks, which opened on June 16, 2025, got off to a rocky start, as the agenda was delayed due to critical differences between Parties. One of the two key points of contention at the mid-year climate negotiations was unilateral trade measures (UTM).
Ahead of the agenda’s adoption, a compromise was reached: the Like-Minded Developing Countries (LMDC) group and the broader G-77 and China agreed that the issue would not be listed as a separate agenda item but would instead be discussed under the United Arab Emirates Just Transition Work Programme (UAE JTWP), a forum established in 2022 to engage countries on just transition pathways for achieving the goals of the Paris Agreement.
Unilateral trade measures are actions taken by individual countries or blocs to impose tariffs, import restrictions, or other trade barriers based on specific criteria — in this case, environmental standards.
These measures have come into the spotlight with the European Union’s adoption of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), followed by the United Kingdom’s plans to implement a UK CBAM and similar intentions from other countries, such as Canada. These policies are trade-related measures adopted unilaterally.
These measures are being discussed at climate conferences because countries introducing them are presenting them as climate actions. Measures like the EU’s CBAM aim to put a price on the carbon embedded in goods imported from other countries. Many developing nations view these actions as unfair and contrary to the spirit of international climate cooperation.
The issue was highlighted by developing countries at 28th Conference of Parties (COP28) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Dubai, UAE, where a statement in the Global Stocktake outcome reaffirmed the principle of preventing arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or disguised restrictions on international trade.
It resurfaced at COP29, where developing countries demanded its inclusion on the formal agenda. The issue has also been highlighted in forums beyond the UNFCCC, such as the 2024 BRICS declaration condemning “unilateral measures introduced under the pretext of climate and environmental concerns”.
The reason such measures are being discussed at climate conferences is that the countries introducing them are presenting them as climate actions. Measures like the EU’s CBAM aim to put a price on the carbon embedded in goods imported from other countries. Many developing countries view these actions as unfair and contrary to the spirit of international climate cooperation.
Ahead of the Bonn climate conference, the LMDC bloc submitted a note to the UNFCCC, stating that such measures increase the cost of global climate action, hinder the efforts of developing countries to implement the Convention, undermine the foundation of multilateral cooperation, and contradict the principles and provisions of the UNFCCC, its Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement.
The LMDC group has called for such unilateral measures to be remedied, citing international agreements like the Rio Convention, its Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement. These agreements emphasise two key points:
First, any climate-related measures, even if taken unilaterally, should not result in unfair discrimination or disguised restrictions on international trade.
Second, such measures should aim to minimise negative impacts, particularly on developing countries. This includes not only the effects of climate change itself but also the social, environmental and economic consequences for these countries.
In a 2024 report, Delhi-based think tank Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) estimated the impact of CBAM on India-EU trade and highlighted how CBAM could unfairly burden developing countries by penalising their exports without offering support for decarbonisation.
The report stressed that such measures risk deepening global trade inequalities and shifting climate responsibility away from historical emitters. It called out CBAM as an instrument of trade protectionism that effectively shifts the cost of decarbonisation onto developing economies.
On the first day of negotiations under the JTWP, several countries emphasised the need to discuss unilateral measures within the elements of the programme. The Arab Group, Kenya, India, and Russia all made statements in this regard.
On the second day, the debate continued. Australia urged countries to refrain from bringing ‘trade disputes’ into the JTWP, calling them a distraction. The EU cautioned that this agenda should not overshadow the elements of the JTWP already adopted in Dubai at COP28. India consistently opposed these views, pointing to specific elements within the JTWP where UTMs clearly fit and do not appear to be a distraction.